A Dan Mitchell Fantasy

But that doesn’t stop me from my dreams. And since I’m in a sharing mood today, here’s my latest fantasy.

You may have followed on the news that the state of Texas just executed a child rapist/murderer. This caused some consternation on the left, and not just from those who are against the death penalty (which is a very defensible position, as I have acknowledged).

Many people, including officials from the Obama Administration and the Mexican government, wanted the execution halted because on an international agreement giving governments certain rights to intervene on behalf of citizens who get in legal trouble in other nations. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not competent to address those issues, but suffice to say that the U.S. Supreme Court was not impressed by the specific argument in this case and turned down a request to block the execution.

My fantasy, however, has nothing to do with the legal argument. I just figured it was important to provide some background information before I divulge my innermost dreams and desires.

What sparked my fantasy was this article, featuring some bureaucrat from the United Nations who is very agitated that Texas officials didn’t acquiesce to “international law.” Here are the important passages.

The United States broke international law when it executed a Mexican citizen, the United Nations’ top human rights official said Friday. The Texas execution of Humberto Leal “raises particular legal concerns,” including whether he had access to consular services and a fair trial, said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. …Texas Gov. Rick Perry also declined to block the execution. Texas, the nation’s most active death penalty state, has executed other condemned foreign nationals who raised similar challenges, most recently in 2008. “Texas is not bound by a foreign court’s ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S,” said Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Perry. But what Texas did also “places the U.S. in breach of international law,” said Pillay, who visited Mexico this week. “What the state of Texas has done in this case is imputable in law to the U.S. and engages the United States’ international responsibility.” …Pillay also cited a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling saying the U.S. must review and reconsider the cases of 51 Mexican nationals — including Leal — who were sentenced to death. She said those reviews never happened. She said the execution undermined “the role of the International Court of Justice, and its ramifications are likely to spread far beyond Texas.”

So I started thinking about the good people of Texas and how they would react if some pampered, overpaid U.N. bureaucrat started hectoring them about their supposed failure to kowtow to “international law.” And then the fantasy began…

I envisioned a press conference, featuring Texas Governor Rick Perry. He’s answering an important question from the Amarillo Globe-News about the state trap shooting competition, when he is interrupted by a sunken-chested dweeb from the New York Times, who shouts out, “Governor, how do you respond to Ms. Pillay, the U.N. official who says you broke international law by executing the poor, misunderstood child rapist/murderer?”

In this fantasy, the Governor’s expression darkens (sort of akin to the look Clint Eastwood would get in the Dirty Harry movies). He gives the reporter a withering stare, ponders whether to even answer, and then gives an answer that earns Dan Mitchell’s heartfelt admiration.

Boy, why don’t you tell Ms. Pillay to round up a bunch of those blue-helmeted pansies and try to come arrest me. If they can make it past the JV football team from Permian High School, she can have me.

[…] tried to do the same thing…well, that’s such a ridiculous notion that I’m reminded of my fantasy about what might have happened if the United Nations had tried to stop Texas from executing a child murderer who originally was […]

[…] to do the same thing…well, that’s such a ridiculous notion that I’m reminded of my fantasy about what might have happened if the United Nations had tried to stop Texas from executing a child murderer who originally was […]

[…] I’ve shared two personal fantasies on this site, but I must be a policy wonk because they involved a vision of a politician telling a voter to grow up and an imagined interaction between the Governor of Texas and the United Nations. […]

[…] I’ve shared two personal fantasies on this site, but I must be a policy wonk because they involved a vision of a politician telling a voter to grow up and an imagined interaction between the Governor of Texas and the United Nations. […]

The appropriate response: “I have given Ms. Pilay’s concerns all the consideration they deserve and suggest that Ms. Pilay need never fear coming to the United States as Mr. Leal was executed for his crimes not for any lack of intelligence.”

To those who care: it may not surprise you to know that Governor Perry is a Party-line Republican – just the Texas version… the same as Mitt Romney is a Party-line Republican of the Massachusetts variety. Both are fairly liberal on social issues and reasonably conservative on fiscal issues.

That being said, I’ll keep right on voting for Rick Perry as long as he’s willing to run again for Texas Governor because he creates “rules” to allow rather than laws to restrict…

Mr. Mitchell says:“I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not competent to address those issues”

Well, if only lawyers addressed legal issues and only economists addressed economic issues we would be toast. What is so wonderful about the Internet & blogs is how the common man is demolishing the mainstream academia fallacies

“If we said we would permit foreigners accused of a capital offense access to consular services, we should allow them access to consular services. This case is not the first time nor will it be the last time that Texas ignores that agreement.”

— It’s not clear that Texas ignored any agreements. According to Leal’s own attorneys, at no time did Texas block Leal from contacting a Mexican consulate; it simply didn’t advise him of his right to do so. Since Leal apparently never volunteered that he was a Mexican citizen who was in the U.S. illegally (for 19 years, since age 2), it’s unclear how or why Texas would have been obligated to do anything. (I suppose a sentence could be added to Miranda, but that’s a different topic.)

More than anything, the Leal case — and the Medellin case before it — are symbolic of the Bizarro World political age in which we’re living. When a state like Arizona proposes to verify the immigration status of everyone it arrests, it’s derided as racist and even draws comparisons to Nazi Germany. But then, when a state like Texas is found NOT to have inquired about an arrestee’s immigration status, a lot of the same liberals cry foul and demand leniency. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

While I share your disdain for international bureaucracies and couldn’t care less what the International Court of Justice has to say, I do think the United States should live up to its treaty obligations. If we said we would permit foreigners accused of a capital offense access to consular services, we should allow them access to consular services. This case is not the first time nor will it be the last time that Texas ignores that agreement. The Constitution does mandate that states abide by federal treaty obligations. This does place Americans traveling overseas in danger of similar treatment. If we no longer want to give that access, then we should use the exit clause of the treaty to terminate our obligations.

That being said, lack of access to consular services is probably harmless error as far as our justice system is concerned. I doubt the outcome would have changed and will not lose sleep over his execution.

The Obummer administration is setting the USA up for the one world order. !f the American justice system allows international law to dictate how our laws are applied and to whom, this will hasten the demise of the USA as we know it.

I foresee the UN someday running the world with a Nato force enforcing their one world order agenda.

Here’s another gem that I see in your fantasy, Dan. The stated position makes the International Court of Justice and the Obama administration accessories before, to and after the fact, to Capital Crimes, such as murder. They make every effort to enable criminal behavior by foreign nationals. When do they face trial?